YouTube massacre

[SpiceMan]

Because guns are endemic in those cities.

[Flashermac]

 

Where I live in the States almost every home has a firearm. No mass murders there so far, and the city is 200 years old. NYC has very strict laws that almost ban gun ownership - but has plenty of shootings. All this proves is that they are two very different cities. Just as the US and Iraq are two very different countries.

 

 

 

 

[CTO]

<

 

But hey, what if he had one of your sniper guns, hmmmm, not a lot you could do with you .22 then is there to protect yourself?

[Flashermac]

It appears ordinary civilians have to jump through hoops to get one of them. Just as you can buy fully automatic weapons - if you go through a rigorous federal investigation and agree to let the feds enter and search your home at any time without a search warrant.

 

Be easier to build a replica 19th century 12 pounder howitzer - quite legal and great for blowing away your neighbours with cannister rounds!

 

 

 

 

[bust]

The only person who has ever had anything intelligent to say about guns was Chris Rock

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFcVwDw4YLE

[Steve]

Everyone says 'America' as though its one big homogeneous country. It isn't obviously. There are places with strict gun laws that others have noted (Wash DC, NYC) and have lots of gun crimes and there are places with guns everywhere like Alabama, N. Dakota, etc. and very little gun crime. Finland has one horrific episode but plenty of guns for a lot of years and its the fault of too many guns? One tragic incident.

 

Its always interesting that thousands of europeans who talk about the 'gun culture' in America visit the country and visit places like Los Angeles and NYC with a fairly high incidents of gun crime but when they come they don't feel unsafe. You don't even think about it. I would even assume that those Americans on here who are against guns in America rarely feel scared living in America while they are here and are in constant fear of gun crime.

 

Any death to guns are tragic. What the people of America have decided by majority is that, despite how tragic any gun deaths are, its still not enough (yet) to end all gun ownership. Its the people's decision and its the the people that live with the consequences of their decision. Others can comment its lunacy or whatever, but its still the decision of a free society. Same with Finland.

 

Specifically to America part of the problem is that the government does not enforce the existing gun laws adequately enough. There is also a 'militant' view of gun ownership by the NRA (national rifle association) is fought with almost religious conviction. Its not a sign of a lack of being an advanced society to want to have guns as some have either said or intimated when this argument comes up. Its a sign of a FREE society. Just like there are things in England like the cctv and laws in the U.K. and europe that allow for surveilence of the people that Americans would find abhorrent and a sign of a society that is not as free as ours. So, Americans could say the same thing. EVERY country has something about it we disagree about, LOS included. Just accept that its how they do things. Yes, there are exceptions like N. Korea and some of the middle east countries, but its a bit of a 'looking down the nose' syndrome assuming an armed America is a lesser society than those from countries without guns.

[Bangkoktraveler]

[color:red]

"<

 

But hey, what if he had one of your sniper guns, hmmmm, not a lot you could do with you .22 then is there to protect yourself?"

[/color]

 

How many criminals have used Barret rifles? None.

How many people know that the company even exist? Just about nobody.

 

The question is: if a person starts killing people, do you think before a victim dies, the thought might go thru their mind "Why the hell doesn't somebody do something"? Like shoot the bastard?

 

 

[..]

Hmmm. Well, according to the report: An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 (a) Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice PDF link

 

[color:blue]Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving (assault weapons) declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.[/color]

 

Of course, these decreases were only minimal because of the few weapons banned. But the decreases are there and you cannot reasonably assume that the same would NOT happen if a more comprehensive ban were enacted. QED.

 

Of course, the NRA ignores these studies and just prints lies that (like any BushCo shit) keep getting repeated and people them believe them because they are too lazy or stupid to do the research themselves.

 

Explain to me WHY you need access to a weapon (e.g., Barret) that has a range of well over a mile, and has the ability to penetrate armor (i.e., police armored vehicles) with available ammo? Even using regular ammo, it will go right through a level IV ceramic plate. Stupid and dangerous in the hands of the public. It serves zero purpose, unless one is compensating for a little dick.

 

Regards,

SD

[Bangkoktraveler]

Aaaah the assault rifle ban expired a long time ago and was not renewed. Using your data, crime should have went off the scale.

 

A Barrett Rifle is a weapon very few people would want to have. I personally would not want to have one but there are people that do have a need for one. Hunting bear woud be one reason and another reason would be hunting predatory animals. As an example, if I had some expensive animals ans some animal was killing them, such a weapon would be ideal.

 

You mentioned the NRA. There position is very similar to mine. If you were in a building and a person randomly is going about killing people. Would you wish somebody had a gun to put this criminal down, or would you patiently wait for your turn?

 

Were I live in the USA some local people that think like you do changed their mind after a bear started to eat a young girl.

 

The issue really is should citizens be allowed to have weapons to protect themselves. I say yes, you say no. But some of us worry that if citizens are disarmed, there is not much left to stop the government from talking away even more of our civil rights.

[Steve]

Not only to protect ourselves but for hunting or some collect different types of guns (WW2 Lugars, etc.) like others do coins and stamps.

 

There is only ONE way to end guns in the states. A constitutional way: 3/4 of governors, 2/3 of the congress and a President signing off. This procedure reflects the will of the people. What I don't like about any group is to end a right and circumvent it around this process. Any right. Those that want to ban guns need to do a better job of convincing the majority. Arguing that it was not the intent of the framers for everyone to own a gun and the 'militia' argument is weak.

 

I still haven't heard a reasonable answer to the areas that have plenty of guns and very little if any gun crimes. My guess it comes down to a urban v. rural thing. In just about every country, urban areas are the most violent in its society. Been that way for hundreds of years in all nations. Philadelphia, Penna., is inherently going to be more dangerous than Philadelphia, Miss.